It’s nice to see they teach something in law school these days other than how to subvert the Constitution on behalf of collectivist authoritarianism. Look what happens when police in Portland, Maine harass a law school student for legally carrying:

This is excellent. But it’s also depressing to see how people are so frightened of guns they call the cops, then the cops harass someone who hasn’t broken any laws, and I think how the average person, myself included, could not handle the situation as well as that young man. Every time I see a video like this, with cops acting like bullies, I lose another notch of respect for them. I wonder if they are aware that bad behavior like this just makes it that much easier for people to think of them as subhuman.

Flu-Bird

Our U.S CONSTITUTION is NON NEGOTIBLE so liberals GET A LIFE

TonyD95B

I would not say the young law student in the video was “harassed”……and the police pretty much conceded to him on all points.

Look at it from the young officer’s point of view: His dispatcher gets a call for a person with a gun. Not necessarily illegal, but unusual enough that a citizen called it in.

At that point, the DISPATCHER could have said, “Well, Concerned Citizen 911 Caller, is the man carrying the gun doing anything illegal or unusual? Guns are not illegal, and we can’t take this further without a reasonable suspicion a crime is being / was / will be comitted”

How well do you think THAT would go over?

Instead, the Dispatcher made it the young officer’s problem………who could have declined the call by saying basically, “big deal – so what?”

How well do you think THAT would go over?

The young officer walks up and actually handles it pretty well. He maintains control of the situation, doesn’t accuse anybody of anything illegal, and just tries to sort out who’s who and what’s what – and fulfilling his obligation to the reporting citizen, the dispatcher, his bosses, and common sense…….without violating anyone’s rights (yes, he did stall for time, but to say that an investigating officer engaging a member of the public in a brief discussion is “unlawful detention” is a bit of a stretch).

The officer then did what young officers have been trained to do since the days of the Roman Centurions – he made it his Sergeant / Supervisor’s problem……

The Supervisor had seen / heard enough to know that there was no crime or issue here (even though a citizen had called it in), and it could possibly even be a ‘setup” – and he put a stop to all of it.

Yeah, technically the police were “wrong” – but no harm was done, and there was no nefarious intent – as the saying goes, “just doin’ our job, m’am / sir”.

If i were the officer I would have cautioned the young law student to be careful and stay safe…..and, have a nice day, sir.

Justme

In the Queen’s Utopia of Bloombergistania, the police would just open fire 50 or 60 times, hitting the “suspect” once or twice and wounding 13 bystanders – they would be given accommodations for their heroism by Popeye Kelly and the compliant media would have a headline “13 wounded when gun nut encounters police.”

I was even stopped for “fitting the description” of someone carrying a gun. As I had just pulled up, I was always amazed at how quickly the heroic NYPD invented the story, I mean “responded.”

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

TonyD95B says:
“Look at it from the young officer’s point of view: His dispatcher gets a call for a person with a gun. Not necessarily illegal, but unusual enough that a citizen called it in.”
….”the Dispatcher made it the young officer’s problem………who could have declined the call by saying basically, “big deal – so what?”

How well do you think THAT would go over?”

Actually it is the duty of the officer to go and investigate. It *IS* a big deal without first hand investigation of the situation, but here is where things should have gone differently.

If you noticed the supervisor shows up, sees enough to know a crime is not being committed and let’s the guy go. End of story, all done, everybody (but maybe the whiny red diaper baby that called 911) is happy.

Let’s look at it this way:

“911, what’s you emergency?”

“please send the police, there is a man across the street, walking back and forth with a large blade. He’s either swinging it around or spinning it, or something. Please help…”

***Officer shows up to the scene to see a man mowing his lawn across the street.**

Does the officer, seeing the situation, go up to the mower? Probably, if for nothing else to let him know there was a complaint from a scared worm in the neighborhood.”

Does the cop ask to check the mower to see if it’s safe?

Does the cop ask to see the mower’s ID? (I mean, the whole “you could be a felon” could be stretched out here. Maybe this guy could have driven his mower down a street once drunk and a judge ordered he could no long operate a vehicle or mower again. Maybe. How about the idea that there is a school down the street and this mower guy, could be a convicted child molester?”

The reality is that the cop isn’t going to do this to a person he can clearly identify as a person mowing his lawn and not breaking any law. “Common sense 101″ really needs to be a class officers need to take.

What the cop is probably going to do, is go have a conversation with the red diaper baby hiding in their house from the boogy man. Unless you can find a payphone in this day of age, or are using a burner cell phone, dispatch and the cop knows who called in the complaint.

These people calling in about a person legally carrying a weapon down the street, ordering a hamburger or praying at a church altar need to have a visit from the police to set them straight.

I just wish this guy’s comments weren’t disabled. I would love to get a list of those cases and maybe even one’s that he didn’t state in the video.

Flu-Bird

Just read of two cases where some thugs tried to rob people in their own home but becuase the home owners were ARMED two predators were sent to the pearly gates No wonder the BLACK PANTHERS want people disarmed so they can have MORE VICTIMS more reasons to reject the UN SMALL ARMS CONTROL TREATY

Polish Death Camps

China instructed comrade Hussein to disarm because they know patriots are going to be pissed when they start buying realty for pennies on the dollar and open free trade zones in all 57 states to recoup the 17 trillion.

TonyD95B

RE: Wyld_Goose says at February 24, 2013 at 2:37 pm:

Actually, the police DO get calls like that……and if it’s ridiculous enough, the person making the call could be charged. The police rarely do that, though – if anything, they want to do things to ENCOURAGE community support.

So, if there’s a guy walking down the street at 3:00 AM carrying a big screwdriver or a crowbar, no one should call 911, and the police should not stop and question him because:

Owning and openly carrying a large-capacity prying tool is a God-Given right protected by the 4th Amendment.

Although it’s unusual to see people carrying tools walking around at 3:00 AM, there’s no apparent evidence of a crime, so he is probably walking home from his job on the night shift…..or something.

Besides, “profiling” is illegal…..

Oh, come on!!! Get real.

The Constitution protects our right to do a lot of things, but it does not negate others rights to ask us WTF is going on if it’s not readily apparent.

“Open Carry” may be legal – but there are a lot of people out there that do not know it, and it is in fact quite unusual. The last person I saw practicing “open carry” was the kid that worked at our local gun range, and he got a lot of strange looks when going to the Wawa for coffee in the morning.

Is that “right”? No, not really – but it’s the world we live in. As responsible gun owners we have an obligation to not act like jacka##es, and politely educate those that are alarmed by / unaware of or otherwise confused about this issue.

As for the police? Not an easy job. D#mned if you do, D#mned if you don’t.

wildman

The cop should have let it go when it became apparent that no crime was being committed. he pushed it and he should not have.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

RE:TonyD95B says: February 24, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Your example of the guy at 3am, should and will be investigated when the cops show up. The police can come up and have a chat with you. If the guy refuses to give his ID and and refutes that he is committing any crime walking home from work, that needs to be taken into consideration.

I would love to hear of the guy that was actually a prowler, that first didn’t run when he saw the cops, and then refuse to give ID and is knowledgeable of his rights when being spoken to by cops.

If the cop needs to settle the matter he might even follow and watch the man walk home. There are a lot of possibilities that wouldn’t violate a person’s rights that is not breaking any laws.

I’m not saying officers shouldn’t investigate. Of coarse they should. But I do expect them to use good judgement and common sense when they deal with a person, who is doing everything the cop is requesting (stop and chat)that doesn’t violate their rights.

I’m sick and tired of cops (who are the executive officers of the law) no knowing what the laws actually are.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

wildman says: February 24, 2013 at 3:45 pm

If the supervisor hadn’t shown up, the original cop would have lost his cool finally and just done what ever he wanted and charge the guy with resisting an officer without violence. (a BS charge that no cop should have access to use. IMO)

GoinSane

So why is it the cop gets to take the legally carried gun from the citizen just so he can feel safe? And just why should the citizen feel safe with the cop carrying a gun, especially after disarming the citizen? Why can’t the cop just take 10 seconds to assess the situation and then just tell the citizen and have a nice day?

What would the cops do if there were five guys carrying guns? Roll 5-10 cops so they would feel safe while disarming the citizens and asking for their papers? What are they going to do when there are 100, or 1000, citizens exercising their rights?

I consider it harassment when the cop detains the citizen, asks about his ID or name six times, while refusing to answer direct Y/N questions six times, as best as I could count.

And Wyld_Goose is right. If this happened in a less busy area, the cop could have lost his cool, beat the guy with his club, and charged him with assault on a police officer. Chances are the citizen goes to jail for five years.

In a minor plus for the Portland cops, I imagine if something like this happened in the South, the citizen would have got his ass kicked by six cops and may never have been seen again.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

Gun Control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

Big Bad Bruins

TonyD95B,

“carrying a big screwdriver”

Did anyone report or was there any evidence of a break-in? A suspect (including his demeanor) walking around with a screwdriver in the vicinity of a crime could provide a young officer with enough reasonable suspicion to further investigate. Sure. Different weapon and scenario though. Did anyone report gun shots? Was anyone injured? Were there any crimes committed that we know of? Is there any evidence that a crime may have been committed? NO? Well then, it’s quite clear that this young, overzealous officer had no jurisdiction. Hell, even his superviser immediately recognized this and let the man go free.

It would be self-serving for individuals to not only have some knowledge of the law, but carry a weapon and a recording device for their own protection.

mary S.

I wonder if this is the same young man who objected to being stopped and questioned a couple of years ago. He posted that video and was upsetting the police officer BECAUSE he was “taping” the incident. The voices sound the same. I cannot remember if he was carrying that day, just remember the officer asking that he not tape the incident.

Tim

Sorry Tony but I dont agree that we should have our rights violated and our time wasted/harassed by the police just because a dispatch officer was to frightened to hurt a liberals feelings with the truth and the law.

Alphamail

I’m sorry but I don’t see this as being cool at all.

Now that gun owners seem to be under constant threat of losing our 2nd Amendment rights, it seems counterintuitive to try and make a legal point this way – by conspicuously and almost self-righteously videotaping and embarrassing a cop who is responding to a citizen’s request.

GoinSane says @ 12:15 pm, “…it’s also depressing to see how people are so frightened of guns they call the cops, then the cops harass someone who hasn’t broken any laws.”

Without criticizing GoinSane, there are many other things to consider.

As gun enthusiasts we are thrilled when we see sheriff’s organizations around the country stand up to the feds by saying they won’t participate in any gun confiscation, or abrogation of their county residents’ constitutional rights. In fact, many gun owners want to join some of law enforcement’s growing militias and the feeling is mutual.

Then we turn around and alienate the good people in uniform (and outside Bloombergistan and Chicago and a few other cities, 95% are good), and then expect them to be on our side when the sh*t hits the fan. Good luck with that if we continue this schtick.

It’s legal to walk around San Francisco nude. Because it’s legal, is it sensible to walk to a school playground and stand outside the screen for hours and “innocently” watch the children play. It may be legal, but it’s not the proper thing to do – it’s not cool and it’s not good common sense.

Neither is pissing off well-intentioned cops to make your legal point.

This is insensitive in other ways. Not everyone is frightened of guns – and not everyone who supports guns owns one. There may have been a couple shootings in this neighborhood recently, and had the videotaper actually have been a bad guy, the caller who we assume was frightened may have actually done the right thing.

Most every “man with a gun” call the police receive is a very serious call and often leads to shootings or death. Knowing this type of call is coming, this is not the place to prove you got an “A” in law class, or the time to further the gun-carry issue – it’s confrontational and it’s counterproductive.

Also, this officer or his sergeant may have been involved in a shooting recently, and they may have lost a friend or a partner who was killed by – you guessed it – a man with a gun, so they may be doing the best they can to reconcile their experience with this situation. Or they may have just come from a scene where someone was shot, which makes walking away from this very difficult and inordinately puzzling – and that’s not even if the cameraman was a suspect.

And, if a man wanted to walk over to his ex-wife’s house and blow her and the kids away, all he has to do if he’s stopped on the way, is to quote what the law student quoted, and regardless of whether he is a felon with a stolen gun and has a restraining order against him, he’s free to go.

Or…Shadeeki Omar JZ Koolwhip, with his pants around his ankles because of the weight of several 9mm’s hanging off his belt: “Sorry officers, f*ck off…(put law student quote here).”

I have a concealed carry permit, but if I were to open carry in an environment where citizens were worried, or where there had recently been gun crimes, or where few people open carry, I’d happily show my permit. Who gives a damn – I had to get the permit – they already know where I live. This isn’t Oklahoma City or places where everyone else is carrying, so the rarity should evoke some understanding – rather than terse law quotes – from the carrier.

Last, if some moron is walking around with a video camera and a gun, and basically challenging the police to an encounter, I’m not sure he’s the kinda guy I’d trust carrying a pistol. If I was the cop I would have tried to impress upon him the ethical (public concern) consideration – not the legal point, and would probably ask if he would consider confirming his permit if I give him my business card with my phone number and a note saying his permit has been checked. Next time he could just show them a business card – they wouldn’t even need to know his name. It’s not in the manual, but it’s personal, it shows trust, he has my name and card, and it shows I’m on his side.

If I was one of the sheriffs who are now on the gun owner’s side, and I had enough confrontations with guys like this, I’d begin to reconsider.

And why on earth (except maybe in Chicago or Detroit) would you want to have your pistol exposed all the time anyway, or even advertise you have it – pull your shirt over the damn thing, keep the element of surprise, and move on with your life.

Flu-Bird

Guns for Goods,Guns for Cash,Guns for Coupons, Exchange your guns for musical interments and more of the stupid feel good ideas from braindead liberals who like to go around feeling all warma and fuzzy inside and getting some bunch of lap-dog media to pay attention to them so they can appear of GMA,TODAY,CBS MORNING NEWS,20/20,NIGHTLINE,DATELINE NBC,60 MINUTES,CBS SUNDAY MORNING,TIME,USA TODAY,THE NEW YORKER,the NEW YORK TIMES,WASHINGTON POST,BOSTON GLOBE,ATLANTA JOURNAL/CONSTITUTION and spout off about their wacky ideas they had in a LSD dream or beamed to them by pink aliens orbiting the 20th moon of CRACKED-POT IV, while skaeboarding to DOG & BUTTERFLY while going OOOOOOMMMMM,OOOOOOMMMMMM,OOOOOMMMMM,

Still, it’s a great video and unfortunately, less educated gun owners will give in to the police who themselves are not educated in the law.

FrankW

I got grilled over recently because .22 casings in the back of my bug. Some nosy security guard at the college I work at reported me to my boss and I was told by the campus cop my car would be forcibly opened to be searched. I started recording on my cell phone and everything quieted down quick. The cop still gives me a dirty look, especially since I leave a blanket over the back deck of my bug now (I even keep a dowel rod back there under the blanket just to tweak him).

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

Alphamail says: February 24, 2013 at 5:48 pm

I don’t mean to belittle what you said to a one sentence understanding. I read what you posted 3 times and even with all of your examples all I saw was:

You have the Constitutional Right, inalienable right and (in the case of an OC state) the State right to OC, but you shouldn’t because people will notice and this will cause a disturbance and make gun owners look bad?

I’m sorry that just doesn’t make sense. A right not exercised, is a right that is lost!

You said:
“This isn’t Oklahoma City or places where everyone else is carrying, so the rarity should evoke some understanding – rather than terse law quotes – from the carrier.”

There are so many questions with that one statement. I’ll just ask two.
If you live in an OC state that is rare to see a legal citizen carrying how is it to become not rare? Not by everyone just conceal carrying or just leaving their legal weapon at home.
How do you think “Oklahoma City or places where everyone else is carrying” got that way? And better yet is retaining it?

You said:
“If I was the cop I would have tried to impress upon him the ethical (public concern) consideration – not the legal point, and would probably ask if he would consider confirming his permit if I give him my business card with my phone number and a note saying his permit has been checked. Next time he could just show them a business card – they wouldn’t even need to know his name. It’s not in the manual, but it’s personal, it shows trust, he has my name and card, and it shows I’m on his side.”

See even you see that there was a much better way for the officer to do his investigating without forcibly committing a crime with this man’s rights.

You said:
“…if some moron is walking around with a video camera and a gun, and basically challenging the police to an encounter, I’m not sure he’s the kinda guy I’d trust carrying a pistol.”

You know, I have to tell you, I would trust this guy a lot more with a weapon then the first cop. Pointing a weapon at a person is a big no no. You know that. Mag wasn’t pulled nor chamber cleared. The cop was the only one showing irresponsibility with a firearm.

You said:
“And, if a man wanted to walk over to his ex-wife’s house and blow her and the kids away, all he has to do if he’s stopped on the way, is to quote what the law student quoted, and regardless of whether he is a felon with a stolen gun and has a restraining order against him, he’s free to go.”

I will close on this one, because this one burned my ass the most. HOW DARE YOU!

According to this philosophy, if we could just have cops go house to house and just walk in to do checks to see if crimes might exist to happen. Better than that, how about we put close-circuit cameras in everybody’s houses that only the cops can see, to prevent any crime? I mean think about how many lives could be saved if we just? relinquish all of our rights and let cop into every aspect of our lives.

It’s bullshit comments like that, that push the anti-gun agenda in claiming anyone who owns or wants to own a firearm, wants to for nefarious reasons.

That comment alone, if nothing else, is why people need to stand up and exercise their rights and get the public used to the laws that are on the books. If Oklahoma City and other places have no problems with everyday people OC, it’s probably because their aren’t a lot of people playing the hypothetical “what if game” to the point of seeing how a police state would make us much safer if the cops were able to just search everything because “what if”.

The only thing this young man could have done different, that I would have called him out on, was resisting when the officer decided to commit a crime of violating his rights. Thank God our fore fathers didn’t just shut up when England told them too, because it made other Americans look bad.

Alphamail

FrankW

I’d be pissed. He’s not a cop either – he’s a “door shaker.” Most security guards serve a pretty good purpose but this guy – especially still giving you dirty looks – what a bozo.

I’d place a small collection of items (cigar, handle bar grip, candy bar, whatever) in the back of the bug and arrange them in the shape of a pistol, then cover them with a light cloth or handkerchief pressed down to show the outline.

Look suspicious and walk away, and keep a camera rolling in a nearby parked van.

Now hiring: Security guard

Alphamail

Gun buy-back programs are realistically very likeable.

I’m not sure who originated the idea, but it actually benefits conservative gun owners.

Dedicated gun owners, mostly conservative, are very unwilling to part with their rifles and pistols unless they are trading up – emphasis on trading.

Undedicated gun owners, or more accurately “liberal thugs or anyone who needs alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, or money for gambling, who happen to have guns in their possession,” are generally willing to sell their soul for something as simple as a cell phone…make that “seya fo.”

People who legally own guns keep theirs, while people who should never even view a picture of a gun, get rid of theirs.

Plus for the conservatives:

Imagine giving $50 bucks for a revolver – ten gas stations franchised by conservative small business owners are saved from robberies.

$200 dollars for a semi-automatic – a conservative roofing contractor driving home with his wife and two kids in their black Escalade is now not carjacked.

$1000 for an AR-15 – conservatives will not be falsely blamed for AR-15 mass killings each time one doesn’t happen.

Alternate payment for liberals:

A sterling silver hookah pipe and Jimi Hendrixs’ paraphernalia for an old revolver.

A set of 14K Grillz gold teeth for a semi-automatic pistol.

An autographed picture of the Mahogany Messiah with Reggie Love holding a hand towel in the background, with an accompanying close-up photo of M’s dumptruck, and a Platinum EBT card, for handing in an AR-15.

A win-win situation.

Ghost of FA Hayek

I agree, Alpha
When carrying we are, like it or not public representatives of gun owners and gun rights. We need to learn to be as polite and non confrontational as a situation permits…..just as the cops did here.
Remember, someone called 911 at the mere sight of a gun.
We counter this by making firearms commonplace. The public will come around as they begin to realize that by carrying, YOU are thwarting the gangbangers contemplating mayhem across the street.

Ghost of FA Hayek

Gun buy-back programs are realistically very likeable.

I’m not sure who originated the idea, but it actually benefits conservative gun owners.
Alpha
Unless it promotes gun theft.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

It is ridiculous to expect a person to give up one constitutional right so proponents of another constitutional right can “look better”.

This guy did nothing wrong! You want him to stand for his 2nd Amendment right by giving up his 1st, 4th and 5th amendment right for the expediency of a quick ‘frisk and search’ by cops.

Explain yourselves!

All Absurd All The Time

Guns are obsolete in a fundamentally transformed glorious socialist utopia. Comrade Dear Leader will keep you safe at all times under his watchful eye. The rainbow collective will always hug and sing Kumbaya together under banners of Comrade Dear Leader the Immaculate Christ Messiah. There will be no strife or violence as the mundane subjects will realize they live in shangri-la.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

knock knock
“Hello sir, we are your local police, we want to come in your house and look around because you have a ‘pro 2nd amendment’ sign in your yard, and we got a call about it. You have to admit it seems suspicious.”

Eric

Okay, here’s a question. I live in a state with pretty “liberal” gun laws, but on the outskirts of a large city where the laws are “strict”(Orlando, FL). How exactly am I supposed to know when I cross the line into the free OC zone, and out of the police state restricted zone?

Secondly, How is even stopping this person in the video on the street to question him/her without probable cause not a violation of rights?

Thirdly, Should this person answer no questions whatever, provide no comment, and retain their “right” to remain silent, how would this have made a difference?

The entire concept of AMERICAN FREEDOM is to never have to defend yourself, or show your papers, in your normal daily life, without probable cause under any circumstances. The state has removed so many freedoms we no longer have a concept of what it means to be American.

Alphamail

Wyld_Goose

First of all, I watched the video once part way – then went to the other room quickly – when I returned I thought another cop was interviewing the guy. I just viewed it again. As far as the cop (same cop) who actually took the guy’s pistol (!) and then swung the sight line across the guy’s body, whoa, that’s way bad. If I was the videographer I’d make a copy of the tape and give it to police internal affairs with a written complaint. If the officer wasn’t reprimanded for that, I’d get an attorney to make sure he was, to at least get it in his profile. He’s a rookie obviously, but that’s a critical life-threatening error and the cop needs to know how bad he screwed up.

Having said that, you think I said, “You have the Constitutional Right, inalienable right and (in the case of an OC state) the State right to OC, but you shouldn’t because people will notice and this will cause a disturbance and make gun owners look bad?” I didn’t say that, nor would I say that.

Most every call a cop gets is because “people notice.” He or she is obligated to go to a scene ostensibly to protect the interest of those who call, but more importantly to objectively survey the situation so as to preserve public safety. That’s what this cop (gun swinging aside) was doing. Apparently not very many people there OC, and people are obviously a little skittish, and someone called. I hope you are not saying that the public should never call when they see someone with a gun – if so, a lot of people are going to be dead tomorrow morning.

As far as gun “owners,” they should never be held to look bad unless they are reckless with their weapons.

Again, because you have the right to go naked in San Francisco, is it wise in all cases? This cameraman was less interested in his gun rights than he was in instigating a 2nd Amendment faceoff to prove OC. Yes, he has a right to do this, but it’s a really crappy way of doing it. You asked how OC was made possible in other states, and I would certainly hope it wasn’t like that.

I was stopped for a questionable U-turn a while back (no ticket) and I had a 9mm clip on my console. The cop asked me if I was carrying and I said yes. He asked me if I had a carry permit and I said sure, and I voluntarily showed it to him. I didn’t have to show him – I had a right not to – but I did anyway. What do I care? He didn’t even ask to see my pistol (which I could have said “No” to). He said, “Cool,” and then, “Have a great day.”

I feel that’s a much better way of promoting gun ownership.

But that’s because I don’t think all cops are Nazis working for the Gestapo. They’re just like you and I, with all of life’s pressures and then some. It would have been much easier for the cameraman (even though HE DIDN’T HAVE TO) to say “Sure, I have a permit – here it is,” and the cop could look, be satisfied, and be on his way. He may have even related to his colleagues that he stopped a friendly OC person that day.

Enough situations like that and a slow transformation would take place where police act differently, dispatchers ask better questions, and the public would view the cops in less threatening fashion…and some of these Obama divisions in America might actually begin to close.

Wyld_Goose, seriously…if I actually espoused or said what you attribute to me, my ass would be burning too.

According to what you have determined I said, I supposedly would like to have cops go house to house and walk in and do checks just to see if crimes might exist to happen (I believe you meant one or the other – not both). Then you project onto me that I might put close circuit cameras in everybody’s houses that only the cops can see…and then let cops into every aspect of our lives…and now, the right to come into your house because you have a sign in your yard.

Looks like you have me figured out pretty good…one less ‘shroom in the next batch tho, OK?

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

@Eric

Florida!! Wow if you picked a different state, I wouldn’t know. There are only a few ways you can OC legally in FL.

Bare with me:

Section 790.053, F.S., specifically prohibits the open carrying of weapons:

“Except as otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his person any firearm or electric weapon or device; provided, however, that a person may openly carry a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes, which weapon does not fire a dart or projectile. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”

The provisions of FS790.053 do not apply in those instances provided in FS790.25(3) when….

(now this is parts from FS790.25 part 3)

(h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;

(j) A person firing weapons for testing or target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law or going to or from such place;

(n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;

Now there are others, but they have to deal with dealers, law officers and so on. you can read the others if you look up the statutes.

So in plain English, you can OC in Florida if you are fishing, camping or hunting (going to or returning from), when in a safe (lawfully) place to target practice (this can very, you would need to look it up or find out from, dare I say, the police)or on your property or place of business.

That is the current law in Florida.

2nd question answer, where a police officer can always stop you to chat, as cops should be able to do, when this guy asked if it’s gone beyond a ‘meet and greet’and he is being detained, this is where it starts getting murky. The biggest violation is when the cop seized his gun illegally. Always stand up for your rights, but you have to decide when the cop chooses to commit a crime, if it is worth you getting a beat down and charged with resist. (The cop takes your gun, the cop illegally searches you: just let then be the criminals and file complain and/or law suit. On the other hand (for the ladies) the cop says he will let you out of the speeding ticket if you **** him off (yes I censored that, assume what ever you want that word is) and forces himself on you with the threat of resistance. Do you resist? Seems like a good time. Last example: SWAT instead of kicking in your neighbor’s door with a methlab in it, mistakenly kicks in your door in the middle of the night. You have men dressed in black and covering their faces with weapons aggressively home invading your house with you wife and children sleeping. You defend your home from bad guys only to get shot 100 times. This last example is a no-win situation the cops have created with BS military tactics. You defend and get shot by SWAT or not defend and it turns out to be an actual home invasion. hmm)

your 3rd question answer is: He could have remained silent at the time the declared him to be detained and offered that he would only answer any questions with the presence of an attorney. He would have had the same stand off. Either a supervisor with common sense will show up and, as you see in this video, common sense and law prevails, or they would have searched him anyways for his ID, charge him with resistance, wire tapping, not providing ID, blah blah. basically charge him with everything because they don’t care. It’s him on the side of the road, it’s him who goes to jail, it’shim who has to take off work to go to court only to have the charges all thrown out. Nothing happens to the cops who make false reports lie would happen to any civilian. Pure harassment. All he’s left with is yet more of his time and money filing a complaint and/or lawsuit.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

Alphamail

If you choose to give up your 1st, 4th and 5th amendment, fine. If I was going through a drunk driving checkpoint, and was ask by the cop for my ID (knowing I am within my rights not to give him my ID because I was not pulled over for a violation, but rather it’s just a NAZI ‘show-me-your-papers’ checkpoint) for expediency I probably will hand over the ID mostly due to the fact that normally my kids are in the car and my wife is giving me that look.

I would never criticize someone else for not handing over the ID and standing up for their 4th Amendment, because it makes other lawful drivers look bad.

There are different situations dealing with the 4th like in cars, your home or business. This example is a guy walking on the street.(where he didn’t even have to have an ID in the first place just to walk down a street)

“well if he has nothing to hide…”

How about if he has something to protect? Like his dignity? Privacy? The right not to be harassed? His 1st amendment, his 4th, his 5th?

I posted this before:

[b]It is ridiculous to expect a person to give up one constitutional right so proponents of another constitutional right can “look better”.

This guy did nothing wrong! You want him to stand for his 2nd Amendment right by giving up his 1st, 4th and 5th amendment right for the expediency of a quick ‘frisk and search’ by cops.

Explain yourselves![/b]

Yes again I might give up my rights for expediency, but I would never fault a guy for standing up for his rights, and my rights and yours.

A right not exercised, is a right that is lost !

As for you naked guy in San Fran., If that ordinance exist , your trying to compare city ordinances, which by nature can be flighty and often violate Constitutional law, to Constitutional rights? Sorry I’m not gunna take the bait. There is no comparisons with that example at all.

Alphamail

Wyld_Goose

BTW/sarc on the ‘shrooms.

But, have you ever imagined a scenario with a good cop in it, or are cops only here to harass the public, take away your civil rights, and crash through your door in the middle of the night to shoot you 100 times?

My impression is you’ve decided cops are the enemy.

In no way do I approve of cops or anyone else trampling on or taking away people’s constitutional rights…and I don’t see any further reason to try and counter your absurd mis-characterization of my view.

Have a good night.

Alphamail

Wyld_Goose

Conversation over!

If you are so ignorant to use my San Francisco comparison vis-a-vis a city ordinance vs constitutional rights, you are one dumb fuck.

It’s about making wise decisions!

Sorry buddy, you read it three times and you can’t even grasp that simple meaning. No wonder you’ve misconstrued my entire intent.

I say blue – you say I said black – conversation over.

http://megasuert.com Valentina

I’ll right away seize your rss feed as I can not find your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please let me recognise in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.

@Eric
As a follow up: In Florida, your pretty much screwed while OC in any situation in which a police officer detains you, wants to your ID and chooses to harrass not beyond taking you into custody. You are limited to very specific situations where you can OC, and not allow to OC (mostly) anywhere.

If the LEO was smart enough, when your fishing, unless your using a cane pole for freshwater or surf fishing for salt, (even then some counties and/or cities have ordinances of no weapons on the beach) the LEO can ask for the fishing licence you would be required to show while fishing.

Same could be said about hunting, and even then there are particular types of seasons. depending on the season, you may not want to be found to have a long weapon on you during say, bow season or a cartridge style weapon during muzzle loading season. And a hunting license has to shown upon request.

When it comes to camping, you find yourself in the woods with a tent and possibly your family. Not a good place to find yourself having to defend your 4th amendment rights against a LEO who may have a bad temper and a disregard to the law and your health. After your 4th, he may wish to violate your skull, then your arm, and for good measure, your knees.

When it comes to being in a place safe to target practice, your probably find yourself in the same situation as hunting. If a citizen is beaten in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does he make a sound?

And last when it comes to being on your property and or business, well at least your property, it stands to good reason the LEO can see your address and even possibly your name on your mail box. But an address alone is all he would need to do search to find out who the owner is.

Seeing how Alphamail has vowed to to use his 5th and no longer converse with me, I will inform you, that it is very easy to mistrust the police. Police have only themselves as an oversight resulting most often in times as any investigation being whitewashed over. Foxes are not the best choice to judge another Fox on how the chicken was killed.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXfVkqXUPSghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x72-wA44fGU
(both are about the same pig cop who legally killed a grandmother with his car, it will make you sick that there was criminal charges and this cop can just go get another cop job some where else)

Another point to why cops can be mistrusted, is because by nature, they mistrust everyone. Yes they are human, and because of that are limited to human ability. Cops are lied to by most people they interact with. That will break down anyone’s humane ability. Let’s not forget that police are taught how to lie. These are people who are trained in deception. They are trained to see it and to perform it to get the case to stick and make the subject voluntary incriminate themselves. So yes Police mistrust everyone, why should not mistrust an officer until he/she proves them self otherwise? If we both remain within the law, everything will be alright.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

Correction –
When it comes to being in a place safe to target practice, your probably find yourself in the same situation as CAMPING (not hunting). If a citizen is beaten in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does he make a sound?

TonyD95B

RE: Alphamail says (Various posts):

Yep – I knew if there was anybody here that would “get” it, it would be you…..

‘Goose is really, really reaching on a lot of his “arguments”. I like how my “crowbar” example suddenly grew a, ‘reported break in’ – there was no such thing in the original scenario.

Weak……very weak.

I agree the officer’s gun handling was subpar and dangerous, but everything else he did was pretty much right on – Gun handling aside, I don’t think he did a bad job at all.

As for this nonsense about rights being violated, well, it’s almost like we have a bunch of whiny Loopy Loony Lemming-Like Liberals here pretending to be “offended”. It’s simply good citizenship and common sense to cooperate with the police when they are trying to figure out what’s going on. Why try to make his life difficult?

like the old saying goes, “Nobody likes cops until they need one”………and many times someone will tell them they are ‘wrong” no matter what they do.

Yes, there are abuses by the police, but they are the exception, not the rule.

BTW, what’s with all this anti-police and anti-military nonsense we’re seeing on Moonbattery these days?

It’s like it’s all-or-nothing around here lately – and that’s not good.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

I don’t know anything about anti-military, that would make no sense, but where you see anti-police (from me) you are mistaken. It’s not anti police, but rather pro constitutional rights.

So let me get this straight. If your are a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, your a patriotic american conservative, but if you also firmly stand up for your other constitutional rights, your a “whiny Loopy Loony Lemming-Like Liberal”? Wow!!

“anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”

No where does that say “anything you say can help you”. You talk to the cop, your defense attorney has the cop on the stand and asks the cop “didn’t my client tell you blah blah”. OBJECTION ! Heresay! Judge rules sustained. As because your defense attorney asking the cop what you told him would be Heresay. But the prosecutor can ask the cop his opinion, his thoughts and what he remembers you telling him.

“anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” Especially if your innocent!!

Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 426 (1956)
“Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or committing perjury by claiming the privilege.”

Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 (2001)
“One of the fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as the wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the witnesses’ own mouth”

I am sorry you are so ready to throw away your constitutional rights because you see it, in error, as being liberal to not to do so. But I’ll be damned, if I I don’t object to someone who claims to be a Constitutional Conservative/Liberaltarian bashing someone using, not only their 2nd Amendment but also their other Amendments written by the same forefathers.

Again, in this video, who committed a crime? The armed man didn’t. The cop pointed the man’s gun at him, the cop did an illegal search a seizure of the weapon. (no matter how wrong your views on your constitutional rights are) The man was extensively detained after it was established that he had not committed a crime. The man’s request for an attorney was blown off, if they were to continue asking question.

Again the man committed no crimes were as the cop over and over again, did.

You blow off the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments, yet think by doing so, you will be able to retain your 2nd Amendment at the loss of the others?

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

So, TonyD95B and Alphamail…

How far would you being willing to let your 4th Amendment be violated (If you give permission it’s no longer violated) in the name of “Cops have a hard job?

When the cop asks you for an ID while you not in a vehicle or committed any crime?

When the cop asks to come into your house to “look around”?

When the cop asks to search your bedroom to “look around”?

When the cop asks to rummage through your wives underwear drawer to “look around”?

When the cop asks you to strip so he can make sure you have nothing on you that might be illegal, when you have committed no crime?

I would point out there is no difference between any of these cases, in where the police has no right to violate your 4th Amendment not to have him do so. If you refuse protect this right with the smaller things, you will lose it with the others.

I figured it would be interesting to find out when all of a sudden your 4th Amendment would be something you would stand up for and you wouldn’t feel that you were being a “whiny Loopy Loony Lemming-Like Liberal”.

Alphamail

TonyD95B

Thanks. Yeh, the posts these days seem “all or nothing” with no in-between.

And they redefine your statements and repackage them to fit an agenda with zero concessions – even to common sense.

They may say that they’re conservatives and I’m not going to argue – but if they were actually in charge, we might be worse of than under a liberal administration.

Anyway, looks like I’m a Gestapo agent now. Sure hope they don’t pay me in Deutsche Marks – I need the extra coffee money to stay sharp and help ward off the Looneys here in Washington State.

Alphamail

TonyD95B

See what I mean…rummaging through your wife’s underwear drawer!

I knew I should never have suggested that.

Off to work. Thanks again.

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

Well I’m happy to see that some education from this forum is present for anyone reading it. Good persons with error views on all of the Amendments, have to decided to self label themselves (as if I had lowered to name calling) in hopes to avoid pointed questions and statements.

If there are actual opposition answers or statements to the ones I have made, I would love to see them and have a discussion.

Otherwise, thank God for the wisdom of our forefathers in their foreknowledge of providing us with all of the Amendments rather then just some of them.

Tax Slave

The best time to fight against a cop violating your 4th Amendment rights is before the judge. The best weapon to use against a cop is a lawyer. Let him search you illegally, just document everything that happens, with witnesses, and then SUE THE COP, THE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY, THE STATE, EVERYBODY! ka-Ching!!!!

http://wyldgoose.wordpress.com/ Wyld_Goose

@Tax Slave

I agree completely except for one part. An attorney is not a first responder to the scene to protect your rights. That is your responsibility(and this young man’s). While I agree you never resist a LEO from committing a crime against you, (unless it’s in extreme cases where cops have sexually assaulted women) you do have the right to object to violations of your rights. Any video recording can only help your case against the criminal who is committing the crimes against your rights.

Voicing your rights, then declaring that your standing by your rights and finally (this would be the hardest, especially in the case of the 5th Amendment) actually standing by your rights, is not the same as “fighting against a cop violating your…rights”

This video is spurring a lot of discussion. I found a great page describing every aspect of young man’s stop. check it out.

I support good cops! I support weeding out the bad cops by exposing the crimes they commit.

Clingtomyguns

In the era of Hopey Change, I for one like the fact citizens, especially liberals and street thugs, would get nervous at the fact of a law-abiding citizen OC’ing. What is does is deter crime and scare away packs of urban youths looking for an easy target. As the young man skillfully put it, it doesn’t give the cops the right to stop a citizen unless they have probable cause to stop and detain them. Moreover, these liberals may be too stupid to realize many of us are also CC’ing. The more off balance they are with the 90 million of us who will revolt if they come for our guns, the better.

GoinSane

Alhpamail says: Then we turn around and alienate the good people in uniform (and outside Bloombergistan and Chicago and a few other cities, 95% are good), and then expect them to be on our side when the sh*t hits the fan. Good luck with that if we continue this schtick.

How do you know 95% of cops are good? Doesn’t matter – if there are 800,000 cops in US, that is still 40,000 bad cops, which is way too many. And although most cops are probably good, and do amazing things I wouldn’t want to do, like dealing with the low class public and gangs, or responding to accident scenes, it still seems that there are way too many stories of people getting shot by cops and the cops almost never get in trouble. I feel cops alienate themselves, by hiding behind dark glasses and acting intimidating (you have to do what I say – I have the gun). And now it seems that most cops are mostly used for revenue, shaking down the public. If chiefs would to a better job of weeding out bad cops, rather than almost always standing behind them, and district attorneys would actually prosecute bad cops, then I would have a better feeling about them. Maybe we could even get to 99.9% good cops, as it is with the people I know and work with. On a presonal level, I’ve probably delt with cops about 4-5 times, and two of those times the cop acted rudely or bossy, and I’ve always cooperated because I’m one of the good guys.

Alhpamail says: I was stopped for a questionable U-turn a while back (no ticket) and I had a 9mm clip on my console. The cop asked me if I was carrying and I said yes. He asked me if I had a carry permit and I said sure, and I voluntarily showed it to him. I didn’t have to show him – I had a right not to – but I did anyway. What do I care? He didn’t even ask to see my pistol (which I could have said “No” to). He said, “Cool,” and then, “Have a great day.”

So how would you feel if when the cop saw your mag he stepped back and drew his weapon on you, pointed it in your face, and instructed you to very carefully remove your weapon, or to very slowly exit the vehicle so he could cuff you and search you, or just held you at gunpoint until backup arrived? Sure, it sounds like you had a cop that acted reasonable. But how often do you see where the cop overreacts like I described. And sure as shittin’ I’d bet big money that you are not black.

GoinSane

Nice link, Wyld_Goose. I liked a couple of the notes at the end, which I will copy here.

“As a general rule, whenever an officer asks permission to do something (may I look around in your vehicle?) you should simply say no. Common courtesy is one thing, but it’s not a courtesy to let a stranger look through your stuff or pat you down (you wouldn’t let me do that to you, would you??). If an officer is asking permission for something then that means he doesn’t have the justification he needs to do it without your permission. He’s asking you to waive your rights. Trust me, if they had a reason to search you, they wouldn’t ask permission.”

“I respect law enforcement. I have worked as a prosecutor and have many law enforcement friends. Having said that, I think Jeff did exactly what he should have done in this circumstance. He was respectful, unthreatening, articulate, and unwavering in asserting his rights. I would have done the exact same thing if I was stopped and think this is a good lesson to keep officers on their toes.”

And I would add to never open your door for the police, or even admit you are home, unless they have a warrant. Also, with the way things are these days, even having a courteous chat with a cop can lead to legal problems. Remember, anything you say can be used against you. You may say something innocuous, like “I haven’t broken any laws.”, but since you’ve probably broken 50 laws by the time you get out of the shower in the morning, you are actually lying to the police, which is a serious crime. That’s an exaggeration, but you get the idea – best just to keep your mouth shut as much as possible.

TonyD95B

Some classic N.W.A. from-back-in-da-day, exercising their First Amendment rights:

I’m sorry TonyD95B. I promise that when one of these bad cops, that society and the good cops refuse to get rid of, comes violating you, I will not protest it at all. I mean, if calling for civilian police oversight and prosecution for cops that commit violent crimes means “FTP” in your world, whom am I to offend your wishes.

You even admitted “Yes, there are abuses by the police, but they are the exception, not the rule” but refuse to get in with the discussion of those “exception” bad cops being held accountable and not simply having there violent crimes covered up by the……..good cops? hmm.

You come off sounding like focusing on some cop crimes is a slap on all cops. I would say bad cops themselves, are a slap in the face to ‘good’ cops.

I wish you were more secure in your views so to actually debate what you believe rather than what you and Alphamail have decided to degrade into.

SNuss

Re: “Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 (2001)
“One of the fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as the wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the witnesses’ own mouth”

Watch this video. It is a bit long, but will frighten the hell out of you, when you are next approached by a police officer: